Search

Abstract Background Type 2 diabetes patients have a decreased health-related quality of life compared to healthy persons, especially regarding physical functioning and well-being. Health-related quality of life is even lower in type 2 diabetes patients when other diseases co-exist. In contrast to earlier studies, we assessed the associations between the number and type of comorbidities and health status in well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients, in whom treatment goals for HbA1c, blood pressure and cholesterol had been reached. Approximately one in five type 2 diabetes patients belongs to this group. Methods Cross-sectional analysis was performed in 2086 well-controlled (HbA1c ≤58 mmol/mol, systolic blood pressure ≤145 mmHg, total cholesterol ≤5.2 mmol/l and not using insulin) type 2 diabetes patients in general practice. Both number and type (cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular) of comorbidities were determined for each patient. Health status was assessed with the questionnaires Short Form-36 (SF-36) and EuroQol (EQ). The SF-36 generates eight dimensions of health and a Physical and Mental Component Score (PCS and MCS), scale: 0–100. The EQ consists of two parts: EQ-5D and EQ Visual Analogue Scale. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to assess if number and type of comorbidities were associated with health status. Results Well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients with comorbidities had a much lower health status, with a decrease ranging from -1.5 for the MCS to -26.3 for role limitations due to physical problems, compared to those without. Health status decreased when the number of comorbidities increased, except for mental health, role limitations due to emotional problems, MCS and both EQ measures. In patients with both cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidity, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical problems and PCS were significantly lower than in patients with only cardiovascular comorbidity. Physical functioning was also lower compared to patients with only non-cardiovascular comorbidity. Conclusions Even acceptable values of HbA1c, blood pressure and cholesterol in type 2 diabetes patients are not necessarily related with a good health status. We have shown that comorbidities have a large impact on health status. Physicians may take into account patient’s health status and integrate the impact of comorbidities into diabetes care.

Abstract Background Early detection and treatment of the metabolic syndrome may prevent diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Our aim was to assess remission of the metabolic syndrome and its determinants after a population based screening without predefined intervention in the Netherlands. Methods In 2006 we detected 406 metabolic syndrome cases (The National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) definition) among apparently healthy individuals with an increased waist circumference. They received usual care in a primary care setting. After three years metabolic syndrome status was re-measured. We evaluated which baseline determinants were independently associated with remission. Results The remission rate among the 194 participants was 53%. Baseline determinants independently associated with a remission were the presence of more than three metabolic syndrome components (OR 0.46) and higher levels of waist circumference (OR 0.91), blood pressure (OR 0.98) and fasting glucose (OR 0.60). Conclusions In a population with screen-detected metabolic syndrome receiving usual care, more than half of the participants achieved a remission after three years. This positive result after a relatively simple strategy provides a solid basis for a nation-wide implementation. Not so much socio-demographic variables but a higher number and level of the metabolic syndrome components were predictors of a lower chance of remission. In such cases, primary care physicians should be extra alert.

Abstract Background People with central obesity have an increased risk for developing the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. However, a substantial part of obese individuals have no other cardiovascular risk factors, besides their obesity. High sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), a marker of systemic inflammation and a predictor of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, is associated with the metabolic syndrome and its separate components. We evaluated the use of hs-CRP to discriminate between centrally obese people with and without the metabolic syndrome. Methods 1165 people with central obesity but without any previous diagnosis of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes or cardiovascular disease, aged 20-70 years, underwent a physical examination and laboratory assays to determine the presence of the metabolic syndrome (NCEP ATP III criteria). Multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to assess which metabolic syndrome components were independently associated with hs-CRP. A ROC curve was drawn and the area under the curve was calculated to evaluate whether hs-CRP was capable to predict the presence of the metabolic syndrome. Results Median hs-CRP levels were significantly higher in individuals with central obesity with the metabolic syndrome (n = 417; 35.8%) compared to individuals with central obesity without the metabolic syndrome (2.2 mg/L (IQR 1.2-4.0) versus 1.7 mg/L (IQR 1.0-3.4); p < 0.001). Median hs-CRP levels increased with an increasing number of metabolic syndrome components present. In multivariable linear regression analyses, waist circumference and triglycerides were the only components that were independently associated with hs-CRP after adjusting for smoking, gender, alcohol consumption and the other metabolic syndrome components. The area under the ROC curve was 0.57 (95%-CI 0.53-0.60). Conclusions Hs-CRP has limited capacity to predict the presence of the metabolic syndrome in a population with central obesity.

Abstract Background Foot problems in general and forefoot problems in particular can lead to a decrease in mobility and a higher risk of falling. Forefoot problems increase with age and are more common in women than in men. Around 20% of people over 65 suffer from non-traumatic foot problems and 60% of these problems are localised in the forefoot. Little is known about the best way to treat forefoot problems in older people. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of two common modes of treatment in the Netherlands: shoe advice and podiatric treatment. This paper describes the design of this study. Methods The study is designed as a pragmatic randomised clinical trial (RCT) with 2 parallel intervention groups. People aged 50 years and over who have visited their general practitioner (GP) with non traumatic pain in the forefoot in the preceding year and those who will visit their GP during the recruitment period with a similar complaint will be recruited for this study. Participants must be able to walk unaided for 7 metres and be able to fill in questionnaires. Exclusion criteria are: rheumatoid arthritis, neuropathy of the foot or pain caused by skin problems (e.g. warts, eczema). Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be assessed by a screening questionnaire and baseline assessment. Those consenting to participation will be randomly assigned to either a group receiving a standardised shoe advice leaflet (n = 100) or a group receiving podiatric treatment (n = 100). Primary outcomes will be the severity of forefoot pain (0-10 on a numerical rating scale) and foot function (Foot Function 5-pts Index and Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index). Treatment adherence, social participation and quality of life will be the secondary outcomes. All outcomes will be obtained through self-administered questionnaires at the start of the study and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Data will be analysed according to the "intention-to-treat" principle using multilevel level analysis. Discussion Strength of this study is the comparison between two common primary care treatments for forefoot problems, ensuring a high external validity of this trial. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2212

Abstract Background Scientific evidence for the frequency of monitoring of type 2 diabetes patients is lacking. If three-monthly control in general practice could be reduced to six-monthly control in some patients, this would on the one hand reduce the use of medical services including involvement of practice nurses, and thus reduce costs, and on the other hand alleviate the burden of people with type 2 diabetes. The goal of this study is to make primary diabetes care as efficient as possible for patients and health care providers. Therefore, we want to determine whether six-monthly monitoring of well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients in primary care leads to equivalent cardiometabolic control compared to the generally recommended three-monthly monitoring. Methods and design The study is a randomised controlled patient-preference equivalence trial. Participants are asked if they prefer three-monthly (usual care) or six-monthly diabetes monitoring. If they do not have a preference, they are randomised to a three-monthly or six-monthly monitoring group. Patients are eligible for the study if they are between 40 and 80 years old, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes more than one year ago, treated by a general practitioner, not on insulin treatment, and with HbA1c ≤7.5%, systolic blood pressure ≤145 mmHg and total cholesterol ≤5.2 mmol/l. The intervention group (six-monthly monitoring) will receive the same treatment with the same treatment targets as the control group (three-monthly monitoring). The intervention period will last one and a half year. After the intervention, the three-monthly and six-monthly monitoring groups are compared on equivalence of cardiometabolic control. Secondary outcome measures are HbA1c, blood pressure, cholesterol level, Body Mass Index, smoking behaviour, physical activity, loss of work due to illness, health status, diabetes-specific distress, satisfaction with treatment and adherence to medications. We will use intention-to-treat analysis with repeated measures. For outcomes that have only baseline and final measurements, we will use ANCOVA. Depending on the results, a cost-minimisation analysis or an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis will be done. Discussion This study will provide valuable information on the most efficient control frequency of well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients in primary care. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93201802

Abstract Background People with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia might be at risk of lacking adequate control for cardiovascular risk factors. Our aim was to determine the extent of health care utilization and provision in primary care and to evaluate the risk of cardiovascular disease in persons with an elevated risk score in a stepwise diabetes screening programme. Methods A total of 56,978 non-diabetic patients, aged 50–70 years, from 79 practices in the Netherlands were invited to participate in a screening programme starting with a questionnaire. Those with an elevated score, underwent further glucose testing. Screened participants with type 2 diabetes (n = 64), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) (n = 62), impaired fasting glucose (IFG) (n = 86), and normal glucose tolerance (NGT) (n = 142) were compared after three years regarding use of medication, care provider encounters and occurrence of CVD. Results In all glucose regulation categories cardiovascular medication was prescribed more frequently during follow-up with the strongest increase in diabetic patients. Number of practice visits was higher in diabetic patients compared to those in the other categories. Glucose, lipids, and blood pressure were measured most frequently in diabetic patients. Numbers of cardiovascular events in participants with NGT, IFG, IGT and diabetes were 16.7, 32.6, 17.3 and 15.7 per 1,000 person-years (non significant), respectively. Conclusion After three years of follow-up, screened non-diabetic participants with an elevated risk score had cardiovascular event rates comparable with diabetic patients. Screened non-diabetic persons are at risk of lacking optimal control for cardiovascular risk factors while screen-detected diabetic patients were controlled adequately.